EDITOR'S OPINION

A hard sell gets harder

Published: Saturday, March 23, 2013 at 9:25 p.m.

Last Modified: Saturday, March 23, 2013 at 9:25 p.m.

A local business group Friday fired one of the biggest salvos waged against a proposed tax increase for Terrebonne's public schools.

Dozens of residents have voiced opposition to the School Board directly, in letters to The Courier and in Facebook comments linked to the newspaper's stories on the issue.

But the chamber, which represents more than 900 businesses, is the first organized group to do so. And assuming it will mobilize its members to go to the polls May 4, the group just made a hard sell, as almost any tax could be described nowadays, even harder.

I'm still formulating my opinion as a voter, and The Courier has more reporting to do before the newspaper takes its own position on the 31-mill property tax hike.

The overarching goals for the $25 million a year the tax would raise sound reasonable, at least in concept: Boost Terrebonne's mediocre teacher salaries to, well, less mediocre, and improve the system's aging buildings, most of which are pushing 50-60 years old.

But I do share some of the chamber's concerns about the board's decision-making process and lack of concrete budgets and timelines for building projects that would be paid for with the tax money.

The board and Superintendent Philip Martin invited some of the criticism through the unorthodox process they have used to come up with the proposal and sell it to the public. In December, after months of discussion, the board voted to start the process of putting the tax on the May 4 ballot. It wasn't until earlier this month that it approved a plan that describes how it would spend the money.

Usually, it's done the other way around: Plan first, then determine how to pay for it.

Oddly, the rationale local school officials are giving for deciding on 31 mills is that it would put Terrebonne at the average collected among school systems statewide. That's pretty weak reasoning. It would be a lot easier to accept a money figure that was derived from a needs assessment done in advance. But the way it was presented makes it appear — whether it's true or not — that Martin and the board first decided to bring the system's property tax rate to the state average then determined what to do with the money.

As a result, statements like this, from chamber board Chairwoman Jennifer Armand, were predictable.

“The chamber recognizes and appreciates the current challenges of the Terrebonne Parish School District, especially in the face of increased cuts and mandates from the state and federal government,” she said Friday. “We also believe that the best way to meet these challenges of growing a top-performing school system is to plan first and tax second.”

I do wonder if the board has missed an opportunity to take a more-comprehensive look the current state of Terrebonne's public school system and its future needs and map out a strategy to address — and pay for — them. For instance, which communities are expected to grow over the next 10, 20 or 30 years, and which will shrink? Shouldn't that dictate where we build or renovate schools? What would it take to raise Terrebonne students' scores on state and national academic performance tests from mediocre to excellent? How much would it cost? Have other school systems had success at doing these things? What can we learn from them?

I also wonder if, in choosing its proposed building projects, the board is substituting difficult choices for expedient ones. Specifically, several board members and Martin have repeatedly said they are not interested in shifting the boundaries of school attendance zones in addressing the system's building needs. Its hard for me to envision a plan that would make the most effective and efficient use of the school's current buildings, and the best decisions on where to construct new ones, without changing school attendance zones that have been in place for decades. I realize a lot of residents would resist such changes. But is the board's unwillingness to ruffle feathers raising the cost of any building plan and shortchanging the parish and its children in the end?

Voters — at least those who bother to cast ballots in the May 4 election — will decide whether these or any other concerns outweigh the potential good that might come from spending more tax money on the parish's public schools. Expect a lot more public debate and discussion in the meantime.

Courier and Daily Comet Executive Editor Keith Magill can be reached at 857-2201 or keith.magill@houmatoday.com.

<p>A local business group Friday fired one of the biggest salvos waged against a proposed tax increase for Terrebonne's public schools.</p><p>Dozens of residents have voiced opposition to the School Board directly, in letters to The Courier and in Facebook comments linked to the newspaper's stories on the issue.</p><p>But the chamber, which represents more than 900 businesses, is the first organized group to do so. And assuming it will mobilize its members to go to the polls May 4, the group just made a hard sell, as almost any tax could be described nowadays, even harder.</p><p>I'm still formulating my opinion as a voter, and The Courier has more reporting to do before the newspaper takes its own position on the 31-mill property tax hike.</p><p>The overarching goals for the $25 million a year the tax would raise sound reasonable, at least in concept: Boost Terrebonne's mediocre teacher salaries to, well, less mediocre, and improve the system's aging buildings, most of which are pushing 50-60 years old.</p><p>But I do share some of the chamber's concerns about the board's decision-making process and lack of concrete budgets and timelines for building projects that would be paid for with the tax money.</p><p>The board and Superintendent Philip Martin invited some of the criticism through the unorthodox process they have used to come up with the proposal and sell it to the public. In December, after months of discussion, the board voted to start the process of putting the tax on the May 4 ballot. It wasn't until earlier this month that it approved a plan that describes how it would spend the money.</p><p>Usually, it's done the other way around: Plan first, then determine how to pay for it.</p><p>Oddly, the rationale local school officials are giving for deciding on 31 mills is that it would put Terrebonne at the average collected among school systems statewide. That's pretty weak reasoning. It would be a lot easier to accept a money figure that was derived from a needs assessment done in advance. But the way it was presented makes it appear — whether it's true or not — that Martin and the board first decided to bring the system's property tax rate to the state average then determined what to do with the money.</p><p>As a result, statements like this, from chamber board Chairwoman Jennifer Armand, were predictable. </p><p>“The chamber recognizes and appreciates the current challenges of the Terrebonne Parish School District, especially in the face of increased cuts and mandates from the state and federal government,” she said Friday. “We also believe that the best way to meet these challenges of growing a top-performing school system is to plan first and tax second.”</p><p>I do wonder if the board has missed an opportunity to take a more-comprehensive look the current state of Terrebonne's public school system and its future needs and map out a strategy to address — and pay for — them. For instance, which communities are expected to grow over the next 10, 20 or 30 years, and which will shrink? Shouldn't that dictate where we build or renovate schools? What would it take to raise Terrebonne students' scores on state and national academic performance tests from mediocre to excellent? How much would it cost? Have other school systems had success at doing these things? What can we learn from them?</p><p>I also wonder if, in choosing its proposed building projects, the board is substituting difficult choices for expedient ones. Specifically, several board members and Martin have repeatedly said they are not interested in shifting the boundaries of school attendance zones in addressing the system's building needs. Its hard for me to envision a plan that would make the most effective and efficient use of the school's current buildings, and the best decisions on where to construct new ones, without changing school attendance zones that have been in place for decades. I realize a lot of residents would resist such changes. But is the board's unwillingness to ruffle feathers raising the cost of any building plan and shortchanging the parish and its children in the end?</p><p>Voters — at least those who bother to cast ballots in the May 4 election — will decide whether these or any other concerns outweigh the potential good that might come from spending more tax money on the parish's public schools. Expect a lot more public debate and discussion in the meantime.</p><p><I>Courier and Daily Comet Executive Editor Keith Magill can be reached at 857-2201 or keith.magill@houmatoday.com.</i></p>